67
submitted 1 month ago by MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Remember that these are the guys who said that they were preparing to fight UN and/or Chinese troops who might invade Canada?

Now their lawyer says that they were used for hunting? Was she taking about the pipe bomb or the handguns?

I don't see a single trigger or cable lock in that photo. Was the ammunition stored in a separate locked container?

These guys should never be allowed to own a firearm again based solely on the UN/China delusion. These types of violent collective fantasies are extremely dangerous and they absolutely should be disqualifying.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Imagine you own the "restricted" gun or a similar family of guns. Then they suddenly get banned and you need to get rid of your actually worthless guns, because nobody will buy them now. A collector could be down thousands.

You are saying "hot pink" like that's not an insane approach to it. You are still doing the exact same thing that the people who want to ban guns are doing. You are mandating a change of form of how the firearm looks. How about not doing that and letting people own the guns they want to own, if they are using them for hunting, sport, etc? How about not banning the "scary" guns for their looks only?

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Gun ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be modified at any time. Automatic firearms were made illegal. High capacity magazines were made illegal. The government responds to the will of the people and most Canadians support the banning of handguns and military style weapons.

The guns aren't being banned for the way they look but because of the type of people who buy them for the way that they look and the fantasies that they have about using them like the assholes who took a trailer load of military style weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition to a "peaceful" protest because the UN and/or China were going to invade Canada.

If you want to have fantasies of rising up against the gubment or shooting Liberals just substitute an oak stocked hunting rifle into that fantasy.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

If there is an equivalent gun with identical performance, then banning a gun because it is "assault" (which is an idiotic term anyway) is plain stupid. If you think those people you mention won't do the same thing with a wooden stock, and all the problems of irresponsible gun owners go away, then I can't really get through to you.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

...assault...

Did I say the word, "assault"?

... do the same thing with a wooden stock...

And yet they don't. That's because responsible, non delusional gun owners don't load a bunch of guns and thousands of rounds of ammo into a trailer and take it to a "peaceful" protest.

If you're buying a gun for how it makes you feel then you shouldn't be buying a gun. I've owned guns continuously for 40 years. My 15 year old son just completed his CFSC with an overall score of 98 out of 100. We are gun people. I'm not anti gun by any stretch of the imagination. I'm very much anti the wrong people owning guns and people who stockpile military style weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition are the wrong people.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Way to gatekeep gun ownership. Everyone needs to choose guns based on your criteria, let's ban everything else, huh?

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

82% of Canadians supported the changes to the firearms regulations. 66% currently want stronger gun control. I'm not, "gatekeeping" anything. I'm discussing the reasons for what's going on. Labeling anyone who says anything you don't like a, "gatekeeper" or a Fudd diminishes the value of anything you have to say.

Why don't you instead try to explain why you need the prohibited version of a firearm instead of the functionally identical non-restricted version?

Or try to explain why you don't want to use the exact same prohibited firearm if it's coated hot pink?

The gun lobby makes such a big deal about banning firearms based on their looks. Explain why looks are your criteria for selecting a firearm.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
67 points (97.2% liked)

Canada

7067 readers
347 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Regions


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS